rush_blast_radius

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait: the analysis is non-destructive ('Calculate'), transitive, and downstream-only, which is genuinely informative. However, it omits operational details an agent would want, such as whether a built dependency graph or git state is required and how expensive a deep transitive traversal can be.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single 11-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and densely packed with distinguishing qualifiers ('downstream', 'transitive', 'changed file'). Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or buried key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the required input's meaning. But the 'blast radius' domain jargon is left undefined (only partially glossed by 'downstream transitive'), depth semantics are absent, and environmental prerequisites are unmentioned, leaving the agent to proceed on inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only semantic source for parameters. It usefully clarifies that 'path' refers to a changed file, sharpening the bare string schema. 'depth' (default 5) receives no explanation — the agent must infer it caps traversal depth from the word 'transitive', with no confirmation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Calculate') and a well-scoped resource ('downstream transitive blast radius for a changed file'), conveying both the operation and its granularity in one sentence. It clearly differentiates from the 60+ sibling tools, none of which address impact or blast-radius analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for a changed file' implies the triggering scenario — run this after modifying a file to assess downstream impact — but the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling is contrasted or named, so usage context is implied rather than articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.